Some input from Mark Crispin (who wrote that bit about message-ID normalization in RFC 5256):
> no-fold-quote does not exist in the current specification (RFC 5322) > [which obsoletes 2822 - wcj]. > > I don't know why you think that the brackets should be removed in > no-fold-literal. The brackets indicate that the contents are a literal IP > address as opposed to a domain. The fact that 10.20.30.40, as opposed to > [10.20.30.40], is parsed by some people as an IP address does not > necessarily mean that it is (I'll laugh when the first all-numeric TLD is > created!). Now, in the modern day of RFC 5322, this isn't a domain at all > but rather an id-right. > > People can flame at some length whether bloop@10.20.30.40 and > bloop@[10.20.30.40] are the same message-ID. My guess is "no". > > The bottom line here is whether that text about normalized message ID has > any particular meaning in the context of RFC 5322 as opposed to earlier > versions of header syntax that used local-part@domain for message-id. > IMHO (and I wrote that text!) I would treat it as advice on how to treat > warts from the past rather than how to move forward. > > That is, once upon a time, it was necessary to treat: > > Message-ID: <"bloop"@grok.this> > and > Message-ID: <bl...@grok.this> > > as the same thing. This was a protocol wart and I'm glad to see it > declared obsolete. I wouldn't flame anyone who decided that strcmp() is > the one and only way to compare Message-IDs. I daresay that's what most > implementations did anyway even when RFC 822 was king. So, stripping double-quotes on the left side stays, stripping brackets on the right side is a no-no. Bill _______________________________________________ Email-SIG mailing list Email-SIG@python.org Your options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/email-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
